Babli Singh vs Union Of India Through General Manager (P)

The applicant has filed this Original Application (O.A) under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, inter-alia, for quashing of order dated 7.8.2017 (Annexure B), vide which the applicant has been held as not eligible for appearing in selection for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist, against promotion quota etc.

The bare minimum facts which lead to filing of the O.A. are that applicant was initially engaged as TADK (Substitute Bunglow Khalasi) on 24.12.2012 and was granted temporary status as Bunglow Peon vide order dated 24.4.2013 w.e.f. 23.4.2013. On change of her category, she was posted as Office Khalasi in Construction Organization, with lien in Ambala Division and at present she is at Reasi, J&K. The change of category is also apparent from letter dated 29.5.2013.

As per order dated 3.1.2014, declaring result of screening held on 30.12.2013, applicant was found suitable for the post of Office Khalasi and placed in provisional panel of Office Khalasi, in pay band Rs.5200-20200 with GP of Rs.1800/0 and it was clearly mentioned in order Annexure A, that she was working as Office Khalasi, after change of category. The applicant is performing duties of post as such since 29.5.2013 and has more than 4 years of service.

An advertisement notice dated 25.3.2017 was issued for selection to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist Level-2 PB Rs.5200-20200 with GP Rs.1900, against 33-1/3% quota in different departments and 39 posts were notified for the purpose. The eligibility was of having lien in Ambala Division and completion of two years regular / continuous service as on 23.5.2017. The applicant was eligible for the post and appeared in the selection. In order dated 7.8.2017, notifying selection process a list of ineligible candidates has also been published in which applicant has been included in that list at Sr. No. 19, on the ground that she is not having two years of service (Annexure A-6). The applicant filed representation dated 10.8.2017 (Annexure A-7) but to no avail, leading to filing of the instant O.A. on the ground that with change of category of applicant as Office Khalasi w.e.f. 29.5.2013, she was eligible having two years even if her eligibility is taken from the date of screening which took place on 31.12.2013, as cutoff date was 25.2.2017. Consequent upon grant of interim order by this Tribunal on 21.8.2017, she was allowed to appear in the written examination held on 23.8.2017, but she failed to qualify the same.

The respondents No.2&3 have filed a reply. They submit that the applicant screening of the applicant was wrongly done by respondents in December, 2013, even prior to completion of three years of regular service from the date of her appointment and she was wrongly declared as screened as Office Khalasi vide office letter dated 3.1.2014, even though she was holding her lien in Ambala Division. As per Northern Railway P.S.No. 10960, 11506 and 11807, her screening can only be conducted after completion of three years of regular service from the date of her appointment and by the parent Division (Ambala Division), in which she is holding her lien. She was served show cause notice vide letter dated 1.9.2017 as to why screening should not be cancelled/ rejected, which was followed by a reminder dated 11.9.2017 and 18.9.2017. However, she claimed that her instant court case is pending in this Tribunal. Now her date of screening has been changed to 18.12.2015, i.e. after date of completion of three years of regular service i.e. 18.12.2012 to 17.12.2015, vide letter dated 14.12.2017 and she is to be treated as screened employee w.e.f. 18.12.2017.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the submissions made by them carefully and examined the material on file.

A perusal of the material available on record will show that indeed applicant was screened in December, 2013, even prior to completion of 3 years of service and as such it was held to be an administrative error, which has now been corrected after issuance of notice to the applicant. Those orders are not under challenge in these proceedings. But one thing is certain that the eligibility of the applicant has under gone a change with certain events having taken place during the pendency of the O.A. Now the applicant has been held to have been screened w.e.f. December, 2015, on completion of 3 years of service. Unless the applicant challenges the action of respondents in that context, successfully, she cannot be held to be eligible for selection in question which took place in pursuance of notice dated 23.5.2017. Thus, even if two years of service is counted from December, 2015, she would not be eligible in terms of cutoff date fixed in notice dated 23.5.2017.

The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In BHUPINDERPAL SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (2000) 5 SCC 262, the Court held as under :-

"..... that the cutoff date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cutoff date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications and that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority."

Not only that, in pursuance of interim order passed by this Tribunal, the applicant was allowed to appear in the selection process but she failed to qualify. In that view of the matter, the applicant cannot be granted any benefit, in the present set of circumstances.

In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this O.A. turns out to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.